I think Lebron works better if he plays with another bona fide star but then is surrounded by role players.

So for example, if Kevin Love was broken into Crowder/Smart/draft pick, I think the team would be better. He is about having the "big names" and the one that gets somewhat shafted is the 3rd "big name."

If the Cavs could trade Love for something like the Boston package above, or to a team that is full of mid-priced role players, I think the team may be better. Cavs issue is depth, and the depth they can afford is often older.

I agree. The notion of "superstars" is overrated. Look at MJ's Bulls or Kobe's Lakers. They really had only 2 superstars on each team and the rest were just relegated as great role players. There's only 1 basketball. You need guys like Rodman who never got individual accolades with the Bulls, but was a bigger contribution then the third best player with most championship clubs.

Personally, I think that's why "superstars", especially the 3rd "star" have their productivity numbers drop when they join a superteam.

you think Pau Gasol was a superstar?

Absolutely. He was incredible in Game 7, '10 Finals. If there were an MVP for a G7, he'd have won it. And, an underrated superstar too. Plus, in '07 big men were more important than they are now.

Kobe made regular or even non existent player like Smush Parker a starter. Remember 2006 Lakers that forced number one team in the West to 7 games in the playoffs. Smush, Kwame, and George Bush forcing Nash and the high scoring Suns to 7th game and if not for Thomas's painful three pointer were eliminated by Smush Parker?

Paul Gasol's best years were with the Mamba. It was not a coincidence. If Smush Parker was elevated to a starting point guard, Kobe made Paul Gasol look like a superstar.

Kobe was (bleep) in that G7 vs the Celtics. Pau carried the Lakers that day. Without Pau, we'd be 0-2 in this century against them.

And Pau had nobody around him in Memphis. Look how great he's been with the Spanish national team when he's got decent talent.

I think Lebron works better if he plays with another bona fide star but then is surrounded by role players.

So for example, if Kevin Love was broken into Crowder/Smart/draft pick, I think the team would be better. He is about having the "big names" and the one that gets somewhat shafted is the 3rd "big name."

If the Cavs could trade Love for something like the Boston package above, or to a team that is full of mid-priced role players, I think the team may be better. Cavs issue is depth, and the depth they can afford is often older.

I agree. The notion of "superstars" is overrated. Look at MJ's Bulls or Kobe's Lakers. They really had only 2 superstars on each team and the rest were just relegated as great role players. There's only 1 basketball. You need guys like Rodman who never got individual accolades with the Bulls, but was a bigger contribution then the third best player with most championship clubs.

Personally, I think that's why "superstars", especially the 3rd "star" have their productivity numbers drop when they join a superteam.

Even Lebron's scoring numbers went down on his superteams. But that doesn't mean a third star becomes a "role player" (which is really a useless term -- if Chris Bosh, Mario Chalmers, and James Jones are all "role players," I had no idea what that term is supposed to mean).

The more important thing is whether the talent fits together well. Bosh was great in Miami and continued to make all-star teams.

I think Lebron works better if he plays with another bona fide star but then is surrounded by role players.

So for example, if Kevin Love was broken into Crowder/Smart/draft pick, I think the team would be better. He is about having the "big names" and the one that gets somewhat shafted is the 3rd "big name."

If the Cavs could trade Love for something like the Boston package above, or to a team that is full of mid-priced role players, I think the team may be better. Cavs issue is depth, and the depth they can afford is often older.

I agree. The notion of "superstars" is overrated. Look at MJ's Bulls or Kobe's Lakers. They really had only 2 superstars on each team and the rest were just relegated as great role players. There's only 1 basketball. You need guys like Rodman who never got individual accolades with the Bulls, but was a bigger contribution then the third best player with most championship clubs.

Personally, I think that's why "superstars", especially the 3rd "star" have their productivity numbers drop when they join a superteam.

you think Pau Gasol was a superstar?

Absolutely. He was incredible in Game 7, '10 Finals. If there were an MVP for a G7, he'd have won it. And, an underrated superstar too. Plus, in '07 big men were more important than they are now.

Kobe made regular or even non existent player like Smush Parker a starter. Remember 2006 Lakers that forced number one team in the West to 7 games in the playoffs. Smush, Kwame, and George Bush forcing Nash and the high scoring Suns to 7th game and if not for Thomas's painful three pointer were eliminated by Smush Parker?

Paul Gasol's best years were with the Mamba. It was not a coincidence. If Smush Parker was elevated to a starting point guard, Kobe made Paul Gasol look like a superstar.

Kobe was (bleep) in that G7 vs the Celtics. Pau carried the Lakers that day. Without Pau, we'd be 0-2 in this century against them.

And Pau had nobody around him in Memphis. Look how great he's been with the Spanish national team when he's got decent talent.

Not sure what your point is. Gasol didn't win a single playoff GAME with the Grizzles. Yes, his best years were with the Lakers. He's a beta superstar who needs an alpha superstar to get him over the top.

Kobe struggled shooting wise in Game 7. But he got 15 boards and played good defense and was clutch late in the game. He still had a good series. Gasol struggled in Boston that series. They needed each other to get past Boston. Same with how Shaq needed Kobe, and Kobe needed Shaq._________________Dominating every day.

I think Lebron works better if he plays with another bona fide star but then is surrounded by role players.

So for example, if Kevin Love was broken into Crowder/Smart/draft pick, I think the team would be better. He is about having the "big names" and the one that gets somewhat shafted is the 3rd "big name."

If the Cavs could trade Love for something like the Boston package above, or to a team that is full of mid-priced role players, I think the team may be better. Cavs issue is depth, and the depth they can afford is often older.

I agree. The notion of "superstars" is overrated. Look at MJ's Bulls or Kobe's Lakers. They really had only 2 superstars on each team and the rest were just relegated as great role players. There's only 1 basketball. You need guys like Rodman who never got individual accolades with the Bulls, but was a bigger contribution then the third best player with most championship clubs.

Personally, I think that's why "superstars", especially the 3rd "star" have their productivity numbers drop when they join a superteam.

you think Pau Gasol was a superstar?

Absolutely. He was incredible in Game 7, '10 Finals. If there were an MVP for a G7, he'd have won it. And, an underrated superstar too. Plus, in '07 big men were more important than they are now.

Kobe made regular or even non existent player like Smush Parker a starter. Remember 2006 Lakers that forced number one team in the West to 7 games in the playoffs. Smush, Kwame, and George Bush forcing Nash and the high scoring Suns to 7th game and if not for Thomas's painful three pointer were eliminated by Smush Parker?

Paul Gasol's best years were with the Mamba. It was not a coincidence. If Smush Parker was elevated to a starting point guard, Kobe made Paul Gasol look like a superstar.

Kobe was (bleep) in that G7 vs the Celtics. Pau carried the Lakers that day. Without Pau, we'd be 0-2 in this century against them.

And Pau had nobody around him in Memphis. Look how great he's been with the Spanish national team when he's got decent talent.

Not sure what your point is. Gasol didn't win a single playoff GAME with the Grizzles. Yes, his best years were with the Lakers. He's a beta superstar who needs an alpha superstar to get him over the top.

Kobe struggled shooting wise in Game 7. But he got 15 boards and played good defense and was clutch late in the game. He still had a good series. Gasol struggled in Boston that series. They needed each other to get past Boston. Same with how Shaq needed Kobe, and Kobe needed Shaq.

Exactly, Kobe just had a bad shooting game in G7. He did other things that game to get the W. Gasol contributed big time too

I think Lebron works better if he plays with another bona fide star but then is surrounded by role players.

So for example, if Kevin Love was broken into Crowder/Smart/draft pick, I think the team would be better. He is about having the "big names" and the one that gets somewhat shafted is the 3rd "big name."

If the Cavs could trade Love for something like the Boston package above, or to a team that is full of mid-priced role players, I think the team may be better. Cavs issue is depth, and the depth they can afford is often older.

I agree. The notion of "superstars" is overrated. Look at MJ's Bulls or Kobe's Lakers. They really had only 2 superstars on each team and the rest were just relegated as great role players. There's only 1 basketball. You need guys like Rodman who never got individual accolades with the Bulls, but was a bigger contribution then the third best player with most championship clubs.

Personally, I think that's why "superstars", especially the 3rd "star" have their productivity numbers drop when they join a superteam.

you think Pau Gasol was a superstar?

Absolutely. He was incredible in Game 7, '10 Finals. If there were an MVP for a G7, he'd have won it. And, an underrated superstar too. Plus, in '07 big men were more important than they are now.

Kobe made regular or even non existent player like Smush Parker a starter. Remember 2006 Lakers that forced number one team in the West to 7 games in the playoffs. Smush, Kwame, and George Bush forcing Nash and the high scoring Suns to 7th game and if not for Thomas's painful three pointer were eliminated by Smush Parker?

Paul Gasol's best years were with the Mamba. It was not a coincidence. If Smush Parker was elevated to a starting point guard, Kobe made Paul Gasol look like a superstar.

Kobe was (bleep) in that G7 vs the Celtics. Pau carried the Lakers that day. Without Pau, we'd be 0-2 in this century against them.

And Pau had nobody around him in Memphis. Look how great he's been with the Spanish national team when he's got decent talent.

Pau was doing absolutely nothing with the Grizz. They were trying to trade him for a long time and there were no takers. We got him for Kwame freakin Brown. Kobe revived his career - and you want to talk about Kobe being "horrible" in G7 and Pau saving us? How about the year after where if not for Pau having mental breakdowns because Shannon Brown was smashing his wife or whatever the case was we probably 3peat. Pau totally checked out the year after. Don't call him an "underrated superstar". Kobe made Pau play at his peak and Pau got plenty of due. In fact many people would have taken Pau over Dirk until Dirk straight up doggy-styled Pau when they swept us.

Pretty much a tossup. Slight edge in points to Wade/Bosh. Slight edge in assists to Irving/Love.

All 4 players were the franchise players for their respective squads before playing with Lebron.

The numbers are a wash. All were franchise players. You may have a slight preference, but that's just a matter of opinion. The point is, from a numbers and franchise perspective, Lebron had very similar players in both cases. Oh yeah, all 4 players were either in their primes, or entering them.

Both were super teams.

I thought the Cavs weren't a superteam when Lebron joined because Love wasn't there yet. Cleveland traded Wiggins for Love a few months later.

That's an important detail since there were still rumors that GSW might trade Klay for Love. Or that some other team might swoop in with a better package for Love. So Lebron was taking some risk since the Cavs had Kyrie and a highly touted, but unproven, rookie. And that by itself, wasn't a superteam.

I still don't understand this. People actually believe Lebron went to Cleveland to come back home Let me tell you why LBJ went to Cleveland.

1) Kyrie had shown the world he was becoming a superstar. Remember that game he went toe to toe vs Kobe where Kobe dropped 40 in Cleveland?
2) DWade was on a decline. Irving>Dwade.
3) Cavs had youth on their team as their supporting cast. TT..etc. Miami had all vets who seemed tired after all those trips to the finals (Ray - Mike Miller etc)
4) Bosh had become the best 3rd option after being lost for a few years in Miami. He finally figured out his role but that was as a great 3rd option. Love was trying to get traded to a winner - he was also hands down the best PF in the league at that time. SHooting 3s, grabbing boards and being a superstar down in Minnesota. Lebron and his camp knew the Wiggins package was a home-run package that could not be beat to get Kevin Love. Klay at THAT time was nowhere as good as he was last year or the year before that. Love>Bosh.

LEBRON SWAPPED AN AGEING AND BORED SUPER TEAM WITH A BRAND NEW SUPER TEAM FULL OF YOUTH. YET PEOPLE SAY CLEVELAND IS NOT A SUPER TEAM. I HATE YOU GUYS. I HATE YOU.

Pretty much a tossup. Slight edge in points to Wade/Bosh. Slight edge in assists to Irving/Love.

All 4 players were the franchise players for their respective squads before playing with Lebron.

The numbers are a wash. All were franchise players. You may have a slight preference, but that's just a matter of opinion. The point is, from a numbers and franchise perspective, Lebron had very similar players in both cases. Oh yeah, all 4 players were either in their primes, or entering them.

Both were super teams.

I thought the Cavs weren't a superteam when Lebron joined because Love wasn't there yet. Cleveland traded Wiggins for Love a few months later.

That's an important detail since there were still rumors that GSW might trade Klay for Love. Or that some other team might swoop in with a better package for Love. So Lebron was taking some risk since the Cavs had Kyrie and a highly touted, but unproven, rookie. And that by itself, wasn't a superteam.

I still don't understand this. People actually believe Lebron went to Cleveland to come back home Let me tell you why LBJ went to Cleveland.

1) Kyrie had shown the world he was becoming a superstar. Remember that game he went toe to toe vs Kobe where Kobe dropped 40 in Cleveland?
2) DWade was on a decline. Irving>Dwade.
3) Cavs had youth on their team as their supporting cast. TT..etc. Miami had all vets who seemed tired after all those trips to the finals (Ray - Mike Miller etc)
4) Bosh had become the best 3rd option after being lost for a few years in Miami. He finally figured out his role but that was as a great 3rd option. Love was trying to get traded to a winner - he was also hands down the best PF in the league at that time. SHooting 3s, grabbing boards and being a superstar down in Minnesota. Lebron and his camp knew the Wiggins package was a home-run package that could not be beat to get Kevin Love. Klay at THAT time was nowhere as good as he was last year or the year before that. Love>Bosh.

LEBRON SWAPPED AN AGEING AND BORED SUPER TEAM WITH A BRAND NEW SUPER TEAM FULL OF YOUTH. YET PEOPLE SAY CLEVELAND IS NOT A SUPER TEAM. I HATE YOU GUYS. I HATE YOU.

IGOUDALA - PAID HIM 14mill (overpayment) HE WAS OVERPAID AND GARBAGE FOR YEARS UNTIL HE FOUND THE PERFECT ROLE.
SHAUN LIVINGSTON - GARBAGe FA PICKUP.
KD - ONLY MAJOR FREE AGENT SIGNING.

GSTATE MADE 1 FREE AGENT SIGNING. KD WENT TO A HOMEGROWN SYSTEM. HE DID NOT COLLUDE WITH 2 SUPERSTARS AND RUIN TWO FRANCHISES AT ONCE. HE JUST JOINED A GREAT TEAM.

the lebron analysis is right on. he didn't even wait a second to jump ship as soon as the opportunity presented itself. what i don't hear people talking about...the last year he was on the heat, bosh was carrying that team, and consistently performing clearly the best for the heat in the playoffs. he didn't get the lip service, it was all lebron, but go back watch those games, bosh is doing everything._________________U+1F49C

IGOUDALA - PAID HIM 14mill (overpayment) HE WAS OVERPAID AND GARBAGE FOR YEARS UNTIL HE FOUND THE PERFECT ROLE.
SHAUN LIVINGSTON - GARBAGe FA PICKUP.
KD - ONLY MAJOR FREE AGENT SIGNING.

GSTATE MADE 1 FREE AGENT SIGNING. KD WENT TO A HOMEGROWN SYSTEM. HE DID NOT COLLUDE WITH 2 SUPERSTARS AND RUIN TWO FRANCHISES AT ONCE. HE JUST JOINED A GREAT TEAM.

1. I don't get your point about Durant. He joined a superteam as a free agent. What's it matter how the other players got there? I don't see anything noble about a free agent joining a superteam whose other stars were drafted -- do you honestly think Durant cares one bit about that? I doubt he even realized it.

2. I don't see the distinction between a superteam that's created by drafting, trades or free agents myself. The Lakers superteams were generally created by a combination of trades (Kareem), free agency (Shaq) and drafting (Magic). They are all valid ways to acquire players.

3. "Loyalty" makes no sense when it comes to pro sports. Teams will trade a player the instant it suits their interests. Players will leave the instant it suits their interests if they can. "Loyalty" is nothing more than saying a player should sacrifice his self-interest for someone else's self interest.

I think Lebron works better if he plays with another bona fide star but then is surrounded by role players.

So for example, if Kevin Love was broken into Crowder/Smart/draft pick, I think the team would be better. He is about having the "big names" and the one that gets somewhat shafted is the 3rd "big name."

If the Cavs could trade Love for something like the Boston package above, or to a team that is full of mid-priced role players, I think the team may be better. Cavs issue is depth, and the depth they can afford is often older.

I agree. The notion of "superstars" is overrated. Look at MJ's Bulls or Kobe's Lakers. They really had only 2 superstars on each team and the rest were just relegated as great role players. There's only 1 basketball. You need guys like Rodman who never got individual accolades with the Bulls, but was a bigger contribution then the third best player with most championship clubs.

Personally, I think that's why "superstars", especially the 3rd "star" have their productivity numbers drop when they join a superteam.

you think Pau Gasol was a superstar?

Absolutely. He was incredible in Game 7, '10 Finals. If there were an MVP for a G7, he'd have won it. And, an underrated superstar too. Plus, in '07 big men were more important than they are now.

Kobe made regular or even non existent player like Smush Parker a starter. Remember 2006 Lakers that forced number one team in the West to 7 games in the playoffs. Smush, Kwame, and George Bush forcing Nash and the high scoring Suns to 7th game and if not for Thomas's painful three pointer were eliminated by Smush Parker?

Paul Gasol's best years were with the Mamba. It was not a coincidence. If Smush Parker was elevated to a starting point guard, Kobe made Paul Gasol look like a superstar.

Kobe was (bleep) in that G7 vs the Celtics. Pau carried the Lakers that day. Without Pau, we'd be 0-2 in this century against them.

And Pau had nobody around him in Memphis. Look how great he's been with the Spanish national team when he's got decent talent.

Pau was doing absolutely nothing with the Grizz. They were trying to trade him for a long time and there were no takers. We got him for Kwame freakin Brown. Kobe revived his career - and you want to talk about Kobe being "horrible" in G7 and Pau saving us? How about the year after where if not for Pau having mental breakdowns because Shannon Brown was smashing his wife or whatever the case was we probably 3peat. Pau totally checked out the year after. Don't call him an "underrated superstar". Kobe made Pau play at his peak and Pau got plenty of due. In fact many people would have taken Pau over Dirk until Dirk straight up doggy-styled Pau when they swept us.

Pau was doing absolutely nothing with the Grizz. They were trying to trade him for a long time and there were no takers. We got him for Kwame freakin Brown. Kobe revived his career - and you want to talk about Kobe being "horrible" in G7 and Pau saving us? How about the year after where if not for Pau having mental breakdowns because Shannon Brown was smashing his wife or whatever the case was we probably 3peat. Pau totally checked out the year after. Don't call him an "underrated superstar". Kobe made Pau play at his peak and Pau got plenty of due. In fact many people would have taken Pau over Dirk until Dirk straight up doggy-styled Pau when they swept us.

It's more complex than that.

Gasol was a star at Memphis who made an all-star team and set a lot of franchise records. But it was also a hopeless crappy team. Some people thought, as you did, that Gasol was weak. Some think that perception was created because they didn't realize Gasol was part of a generational shift, where big men were changing from bruisers to all-around players with a finesse game.

If you take the second view, Gasol didn't so much change in Los Angeles, as he was liberated by the coach, system and better teammates to let his game thrive in a way it couldn't in Memphis. And then you say Gasol stopped being soft for the same reason Dirk did: He didn't do anything different; the situation around him changed, he won, and so it was perceived he had changed in some way.

As far as what they got for him, that's long been debated. People question whether they actually took the best deal, and the owner questioned whether the GM actually contacted enough teams or just panicked and took a sub-standard deal. Ten years later it's hard to check out the he said, she saids.

Pretty much a tossup. Slight edge in points to Wade/Bosh. Slight edge in assists to Irving/Love.

All 4 players were the franchise players for their respective squads before playing with Lebron.

The numbers are a wash. All were franchise players. You may have a slight preference, but that's just a matter of opinion. The point is, from a numbers and franchise perspective, Lebron had very similar players in both cases. Oh yeah, all 4 players were either in their primes, or entering them.

Both were super teams.

I thought the Cavs weren't a superteam when Lebron joined because Love wasn't there yet. Cleveland traded Wiggins for Love a few months later.

That's an important detail since there were still rumors that GSW might trade Klay for Love. Or that some other team might swoop in with a better package for Love. So Lebron was taking some risk since the Cavs had Kyrie and a highly touted, but unproven, rookie. And that by itself, wasn't a superteam.

I still don't understand this. People actually believe Lebron went to Cleveland to come back home Let me tell you why LBJ went to Cleveland.

1) Kyrie had shown the world he was becoming a superstar. Remember that game he went toe to toe vs Kobe where Kobe dropped 40 in Cleveland?
2) DWade was on a decline. Irving>Dwade.
3) Cavs had youth on their team as their supporting cast. TT..etc. Miami had all vets who seemed tired after all those trips to the finals (Ray - Mike Miller etc)
4) Bosh had become the best 3rd option after being lost for a few years in Miami. He finally figured out his role but that was as a great 3rd option. Love was trying to get traded to a winner - he was also hands down the best PF in the league at that time. SHooting 3s, grabbing boards and being a superstar down in Minnesota. Lebron and his camp knew the Wiggins package was a home-run package that could not be beat to get Kevin Love. Klay at THAT time was nowhere as good as he was last year or the year before that. Love>Bosh.

LEBRON SWAPPED AN AGEING AND BORED SUPER TEAM WITH A BRAND NEW SUPER TEAM FULL OF YOUTH. YET PEOPLE SAY CLEVELAND IS NOT A SUPER TEAM. I HATE YOU GUYS. I HATE YOU.

Pretty much a tossup. Slight edge in points to Wade/Bosh. Slight edge in assists to Irving/Love.

All 4 players were the franchise players for their respective squads before playing with Lebron.

The numbers are a wash. All were franchise players. You may have a slight preference, but that's just a matter of opinion. The point is, from a numbers and franchise perspective, Lebron had very similar players in both cases. Oh yeah, all 4 players were either in their primes, or entering them.

Both were super teams.

I thought the Cavs weren't a superteam when Lebron joined because Love wasn't there yet. Cleveland traded Wiggins for Love a few months later.

That's an important detail since there were still rumors that GSW might trade Klay for Love. Or that some other team might swoop in with a better package for Love. So Lebron was taking some risk since the Cavs had Kyrie and a highly touted, but unproven, rookie. And that by itself, wasn't a superteam.

I still don't understand this. People actually believe Lebron went to Cleveland to come back home Let me tell you why LBJ went to Cleveland.

1) Kyrie had shown the world he was becoming a superstar. Remember that game he went toe to toe vs Kobe where Kobe dropped 40 in Cleveland?
2) DWade was on a decline. Irving>Dwade.
3) Cavs had youth on their team as their supporting cast. TT..etc. Miami had all vets who seemed tired after all those trips to the finals (Ray - Mike Miller etc)
4) Bosh had become the best 3rd option after being lost for a few years in Miami. He finally figured out his role but that was as a great 3rd option. Love was trying to get traded to a winner - he was also hands down the best PF in the league at that time. SHooting 3s, grabbing boards and being a superstar down in Minnesota. Lebron and his camp knew the Wiggins package was a home-run package that could not be beat to get Kevin Love. Klay at THAT time was nowhere as good as he was last year or the year before that. Love>Bosh.

LEBRON SWAPPED AN AGEING AND BORED SUPER TEAM WITH A BRAND NEW SUPER TEAM FULL OF YOUTH. YET PEOPLE SAY CLEVELAND IS NOT A SUPER TEAM. I HATE YOU GUYS. I HATE YOU.

IGOUDALA - PAID HIM 14mill (overpayment) HE WAS OVERPAID AND GARBAGE FOR YEARS UNTIL HE FOUND THE PERFECT ROLE.
SHAUN LIVINGSTON - GARBAGe FA PICKUP.
KD - ONLY MAJOR FREE AGENT SIGNING.

GSTATE MADE 1 FREE AGENT SIGNING. KD WENT TO A HOMEGROWN SYSTEM. HE DID NOT COLLUDE WITH 2 SUPERSTARS AND RUIN TWO FRANCHISES AT ONCE. HE JUST JOINED A GREAT TEAM.

Lebron joined a Cleveland franchise that was a LOTTERY TEAM. As in one of the 10 worst teams in the league.

If a LOTTERY TEAM is a SUPERTEAM, then isn't every team a SUPERTEAM?

There isn't a strict definition of a super team but most people would say it's having three stars. LeBron joining Irving plus a draft pick that was cashed in for Love qualifies in my book is a super team.

what a complete joke.
His "decision" spawned the concept of the superteam.

"The Decision", may have spawned the term "superteam", but the concept has been around many many years. Clyde Drexler said the other day that the '80's Lakers were the first superteam with Worthy, Kareem, Magic. He was close. The first superteam, to my knowledge, was the '68-'69 Lakers (of course), when we got Wilt via trade, to join perennial all-stars, West and Baylor.

what a complete joke.
His "decision" spawned the concept of the superteam.

"The Decision", may have spawned the term "superteam", but the concept has been around many many years. Clyde Drexler said the other day that the '80's Lakers were the first superteam with Worthy, Kareem, Magic. He was close. The first superteam, to my knowledge, was the '68-'69 Lakers (of course), when we got Wilt via trade, to join perennial all-stars, West and Baylor.

The '68 Lakers were probably the first superteam created by trade. But the 1950s Lakers with George Mikan, Vern Mikkelsen, Jim Pollard and Slater Martin were probably the first superteam. They've been around since before the NBA was even formed.

The 60s Celtics had back to back MVPs (Russell and Cousy) plus at least four other Hall of Famers. That's certainly a superteam. My guess is that at least 75% of rings have been won by superteams.

The turning point of the Miami Heat is that the players got together to form a superteam, rather than waiting for a team or GM to do it for them. I'm not 100% sure why that bothers some fans so much. But even though fans root for players, they seem to identify with the owners, and they seem to want the players to know "their place."

what a complete joke.
His "decision" spawned the concept of the superteam.

"The Decision", may have spawned the term "superteam", but the concept has been around many many years. Clyde Drexler said the other day that the '80's Lakers were the first superteam with Worthy, Kareem, Magic. He was close. The first superteam, to my knowledge, was the '68-'69 Lakers (of course), when we got Wilt via trade, to join perennial all-stars, West and Baylor.

The '68 Lakers were probably the first superteam created by trade. But the 1950s Lakers with George Mikan, Vern Mikkelsen, Jim Pollard and Slater Martin were probably the first superteam. They've been around since before the NBA was even formed.

The 60s Celtics had back to back MVPs (Russell and Cousy) plus at least four other Hall of Famers. That's certainly a superteam. My guess is that at least 75% of rings have been won by superteams.

The turning point of the Miami Heat is that the players got together to form a superteam, rather than waiting for a team or GM to do it for them. I'm not 100% sure why that bothers some fans so much. But even though fans root for players, they seem to identify with the owners, and they seem to want the players to know "their place."

Well, I think you're broadening the currently accepted definition of the term, "superteam", unnecessarily. The term was never applied to teams that were built through a team's own drafting. Including those teams would open the door to calling a heck of a lot more teams "super". If you're going to include great teams who were put together through the draft, you might as well drop the term, "superteam" because NBA history is littered with those types of teams.

Joined: 17 Nov 2007Posts: 46418Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:53 am Post subject:

SuperboyReformed wrote:

lebron is so good, he brought the cavs back from down 1-3 to beat the super warriors. what does that say about durant?

Says the next year they were in the same position and won in 5. Durant was the MVP._________________Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

When people talk about "superteams" I think of players who are franchise type players who are relatively in their prime. Both Kyrie, Love and Lebron were all #1 options, and franchise type players and they are on the same team. SUPER-team.

The Warriors actually only have 2 franchise type #1 options on their team. Draymond would never be a #1 or #2 option. His shooting is too inconsistent and so is his overall offensive game. Klay could be a good #2. But I don't see Klay carrying a franchise like Irving and Love did._________________Dominating every day.

When people talk about "superteams" I think of players who are franchise type players who are relatively in their prime. Both Kyrie, Love and Lebron were all #1 options, and franchise type players and they are on the same team. SUPER-team.

The Warriors actually only have 2 franchise type #1 options on their team. Draymond would never be a #1 or #2 option. His shooting is too inconsistent and so is his overall offensive game. Klay could be a good #2. But I don't see Klay carrying a franchise like Irving and Love did.

I don't agree that a super team has to be three guys whose primary strength is all shooting. In any case, I think there are lots of teams in the league that would be happy to have Klay Thompson as their number one offensive option. And certainly if you redrafted the entire league, Green would easily go in the first round.

But the notion that LeBron, Irving, and Love are super team, but Curry, Durant, Green, and Thompson are not makes absolutely no sense to me

When people talk about "superteams" I think of players who are franchise type players who are relatively in their prime. Both Kyrie, Love and Lebron were all #1 options, and franchise type players and they are on the same team. SUPER-team.

The Warriors actually only have 2 franchise type #1 options on their team. Draymond would never be a #1 or #2 option. His shooting is too inconsistent and so is his overall offensive game. Klay could be a good #2. But I don't see Klay carrying a franchise like Irving and Love did.

i think when a team has 4 olympians on the team (back with barnes) that is a unique type of superteam. they got rid of barnes and added an even more elite olympian in durant. there's never been anything like the warriors team. olympians are subjectively even more elite than all stars.

also, scoring is by far the most vital skill to have in the elite category. the best scorer is the best player. compared to scoring, rebounding, defense, hustling is easy, there's no precision involved. effort and hustle is one thing, but it can be turned on like a switch for most pro athletes. you need to put in tons of practice to shoot 90% free throws, doesn't matter if you do yoga, hustle, or desire more._________________U+1F49C

If you're going to include great teams who were put together through the draft, you might as well drop the term, "superteam" because NBA history is littered with those types of teams.

Very few great teams were put together entirely through the draft -- virtually every ring team in league history since the 1980s was created through a combination of trades, free agency and drafting.

The only ring teams I can think who drafted all their stars were the first Warriors team and the Spurs.

So what's the tipping point?

The first Warriors team was not a superteam but the second was?

If you have three stars, are you a superteam only if you drafted none of them? Or one? Or two?

What exactly is your definition of a superteam?

I would say that a team that already has one or two "superstar" players, meaning anything from "franchise player" to "perennial' all-star, and adds one or more of the same type of player through trade or FA, qualifies as a superteam. The Warrios might be an exception because they had a two time MVP and added another former MVP who was still in his prime. I'll add that aall of the aforementioned players should be in their primes or perhaps just nearing the down side.

If you're going to include great teams who were put together through the draft, you might as well drop the term, "superteam" because NBA history is littered with those types of teams.

Very few great teams were put together entirely through the draft -- virtually every ring team in league history since the 1980s was created through a combination of trades, free agency and drafting.

The only ring teams I can think who drafted all their stars were the first Warriors team and the Spurs.

So what's the tipping point?

The first Warriors team was not a superteam but the second was?

If you have three stars, are you a superteam only if you drafted none of them? Or one? Or two?

What exactly is your definition of a superteam?

I would say that a team that already has one or two "superstar" players, meaning anything from "franchise player" to "perennial' all-star, and adds one or more of the same type of player through trade or FA, qualifies as a superteam. The Warrios might be an exception because they had a two time MVP and added another former MVP who was still in his prime. I'll add that aall of the aforementioned players should be in their primes or perhaps just nearing the down side.

By and large, I agree with you about the amount of talent a team needs to be considered a superteam. We differ in that I don't think it matters how that talent was accumulated. You don't think a superteam can be drafted; but can only be created by a general manager.

I don't see why Bosh and Lebron joining Wade in Miami is a superteam by your definition, but if those exact players had all gone to, say, Milwaukee together they would not be a superteam.